Religious Freedom?????
I am really confused by the laws that were passed in Indiana and Arkansas.
I shouldn't be, but I am.
In fact, every time I think that folks can't sink any lower in the way they treat one another, they do.
I have a colorful religious background.
I joke with one of my best friends in the world about the guilt that I still feel from the mental beat-down the nuns put on me during my formative years.
We were scared to death of life because we were afraid that we were going to be trapped in eternal damnation that would result in constant suffering.
Yet.
I did learn one thing about my faith.
That it was love-based.
And that only love could teach me joy.
Hate can't do that.
Yet...that was what I learned.
That was what I decided to hold onto.
Judging my fellow man, and casting stones in their direction was strongly discouraged by my Christian faith.
Evidently, I missed the memo where that was repealed.
Stones are flying all over the place, striking the faces of those who don't feel the way some folks feel.
It confuses me.
It really does.
As the media part of the story goes the law in Indiana was based on the fact that a baker didn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. This new law protects the baker from persecution based on religious beliefs.
Hence the 'religious freedom' law.
Here's where I get confused.
I don't normally seek out the religious background of the guy who is selling me food at a restaurant, serving me cold cuts, cutting my hair, or changing the oil in my car.
Yet if I were living in Indiana as a Christian man, and that dude was a part of a religion that didn't believe in Christianity...
...he could refuse to serve me?
It begs so many questions:
1). There are about a zillion religions out there. How do we know whether or not someone is truly passionate about their religion, or if it's a religion that they made up on their own while having a psychotic episode?
If it is such a religion...could they say...ban red-headed, fair-skinned folks who wear gold crosses?
2). Where does one cross the line in judgment of another?
Those who are for the law are fond of saying that their freedoms are being impeached because they can't act the way they want to when it comes to their treatment of others.
But the baker in that situation made the judgement. He judged the lifestyle of the gay couple and deemed it to be below his standards of what HIS God might want.
Does the gay couple get a chance to present their view of their God to the baker...or is it simply one-sided?
Can a gay baker cite the law in refusal of selling cake to a straight couple?
3). Religious Choice?
I think a lot about the first folks who came over to this country.
They headed here because of religious reasons.
They were being persecuted.
They wanted religious freedom.
They didn't want to be told what God they had to worship.
What is the net goal of these new laws?
To get the gays to renounce their lifestyle and adopt the same religious life of those who own the businesses they frequent?
4). What's Our Capacity to Hate?
We are no longer tolerant of anyone.
Wars are fought because one group of people doesn't like that another group of people believes something other than what they believe.
That will happen until the day this freaking planet explodes.
"You don't agree with my thoughts? Well, I want to kill you."
That's how it goes, I guess.
The law disappoints the hell out of me.
Because it is not about freedom.
It's about restriction.
Name the law 'Religious Restriction' and I might just understand it a little more.
Of course...
...my writing, my confused thoughts, will probably get me angered responses.
Perhaps someone, somewhere, somehow will decide that my religious outlook doesn't deserve respect.
You get me here?
They legislated a law to respect someone's 'religious freedom' by allowing them the 'no-questions-asked' ability to strip someone else of their own free thought?
Early on in my collegiate educational career a wise man who taught theology at the 'Catholic' University told me:
"When you examine the faith of all people it's like we are all sitting around a huge campfire. You can be staring into the campfire, at just about the same angle as the guy seated right beside you, and you will see completely different things. The base of the fire may be similar, but you could be concentrating on the smoldering coals while he could be watching a piece of wood break down. It's the same fire, but it's completely different."
I never forgot that lesson because that professor summed it up perfectly.
"As long as you interpret what you see, and live a good life in your mind, you've lived up to your God's expectation. The one thing you should not do, is to tell the guy next to you what he's supposed to be looking at...because you can't see it from his angle."
Being allowed to see it differently...by both parties...without restriction...
Well.
That would be religious freedom.
I shouldn't be, but I am.
In fact, every time I think that folks can't sink any lower in the way they treat one another, they do.
I have a colorful religious background.
I joke with one of my best friends in the world about the guilt that I still feel from the mental beat-down the nuns put on me during my formative years.
We were scared to death of life because we were afraid that we were going to be trapped in eternal damnation that would result in constant suffering.
Yet.
I did learn one thing about my faith.
That it was love-based.
And that only love could teach me joy.
Hate can't do that.
Yet...that was what I learned.
That was what I decided to hold onto.
Judging my fellow man, and casting stones in their direction was strongly discouraged by my Christian faith.
Evidently, I missed the memo where that was repealed.
Stones are flying all over the place, striking the faces of those who don't feel the way some folks feel.
It confuses me.
It really does.
As the media part of the story goes the law in Indiana was based on the fact that a baker didn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. This new law protects the baker from persecution based on religious beliefs.
Hence the 'religious freedom' law.
Here's where I get confused.
I don't normally seek out the religious background of the guy who is selling me food at a restaurant, serving me cold cuts, cutting my hair, or changing the oil in my car.
Yet if I were living in Indiana as a Christian man, and that dude was a part of a religion that didn't believe in Christianity...
...he could refuse to serve me?
It begs so many questions:
1). There are about a zillion religions out there. How do we know whether or not someone is truly passionate about their religion, or if it's a religion that they made up on their own while having a psychotic episode?
If it is such a religion...could they say...ban red-headed, fair-skinned folks who wear gold crosses?
2). Where does one cross the line in judgment of another?
Those who are for the law are fond of saying that their freedoms are being impeached because they can't act the way they want to when it comes to their treatment of others.
But the baker in that situation made the judgement. He judged the lifestyle of the gay couple and deemed it to be below his standards of what HIS God might want.
Does the gay couple get a chance to present their view of their God to the baker...or is it simply one-sided?
Can a gay baker cite the law in refusal of selling cake to a straight couple?
3). Religious Choice?
I think a lot about the first folks who came over to this country.
They headed here because of religious reasons.
They were being persecuted.
They wanted religious freedom.
They didn't want to be told what God they had to worship.
What is the net goal of these new laws?
To get the gays to renounce their lifestyle and adopt the same religious life of those who own the businesses they frequent?
4). What's Our Capacity to Hate?
We are no longer tolerant of anyone.
Wars are fought because one group of people doesn't like that another group of people believes something other than what they believe.
That will happen until the day this freaking planet explodes.
"You don't agree with my thoughts? Well, I want to kill you."
That's how it goes, I guess.
The law disappoints the hell out of me.
Because it is not about freedom.
It's about restriction.
Name the law 'Religious Restriction' and I might just understand it a little more.
Of course...
...my writing, my confused thoughts, will probably get me angered responses.
Perhaps someone, somewhere, somehow will decide that my religious outlook doesn't deserve respect.
You get me here?
They legislated a law to respect someone's 'religious freedom' by allowing them the 'no-questions-asked' ability to strip someone else of their own free thought?
Early on in my collegiate educational career a wise man who taught theology at the 'Catholic' University told me:
"When you examine the faith of all people it's like we are all sitting around a huge campfire. You can be staring into the campfire, at just about the same angle as the guy seated right beside you, and you will see completely different things. The base of the fire may be similar, but you could be concentrating on the smoldering coals while he could be watching a piece of wood break down. It's the same fire, but it's completely different."
I never forgot that lesson because that professor summed it up perfectly.
"As long as you interpret what you see, and live a good life in your mind, you've lived up to your God's expectation. The one thing you should not do, is to tell the guy next to you what he's supposed to be looking at...because you can't see it from his angle."
Being allowed to see it differently...by both parties...without restriction...
Well.
That would be religious freedom.
Comments